Yes, this is UKMIX! If you're viewing this on your mobile device, you can alter the style settings at the bottom of the page! Before you can post on our community, you will have to register (click the register link to proceed). To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

by

» 18-04-17, 16:04

For what it's worth I think I'd be prepared to spend the requisite funds on this magnum opus - well; singles certainly - given the quantity (and of course quality) of the data that they will cover, which is way ahead of what has come before either in the physical or digital world of chart-related tomes. Piecemeal is the way forward as that breaks the expenditure down into manageable chunks. I'm not surprised that the timescale for delivery stretches towards the end of this decade and you deserve the money for the sheer effort you're investing in this project. I'd be overwhelmed just getting my head around the enormity of it!

Again, for what it's worth as I'm sure people will disagree, a word on the "Top 200" question. I think whether you extend the chart you use to that length will not only depend on how much time/work it will take to compile given all the extras (B-sides, writers etc), but also whether you are prepared to commit to it from the date you start to the end. I think many would consider a reduction in chart length in later years something of a disappointment?

Personally, I'd be happy if you didn't utilise it until such a time as we know the 200 positions listed were - more or less - genuine representations of the 1st to 200th bestsellers each week. The compressed charts from 1983 to 2005 are interesting but lack credibility for me from No 76 downwards. Even from 2005 to 2006 they were compromised because the OCC didn't fully-integrate the digital format alongside the physical until 1 January 2007, with the lunatic decision to remove titles from anywhere in the Top 200 two weeks after physical deletion despite continued strong sales on digital for the last 9 months. I know you can use the 'Hit Music' true (but 'unofficial') Top 200s from 1994 to 2001, but thereafter you'd have to revert to the compressed form which creates an inconsistency, and albeit a more accurate picture, HM is not being billed at 'official' by the OCC and so to present your work under the banner of the 'o' word you'd probably have to stick with the compressed version throughout anyway?

I wouldn't mind if you decided only to ever stick with the Top 100 from when the 76th to 100th positions became more 'real'. That tallies with what's been made available online and I think most would now accept the 100 as the chart of record (despite MW/Alan Jones' insistence on confining most of their reportage to the Top 75).

Oh - and what about the difficult issue of re-entries? Personally I'd like to see a breakdown of runs somehow but I know that will add more work as opposed to just reporting a singular peak and combined no of weeks on chart to date. I guess it might be just too much for albums, but I'd implore you to consider breakdowns of chart runs for singles - especially as until the late '00s frequent re-entries of older titles was a relatively rare thing

by

» 18-04-17, 18:30

I have to admit I am leaning towards a Top 100 for 1994 onwards. It is easy enough to re-work the data to listing just those and then create the correct re entry lists. So don't worry. I'll list each chart run properly re and all. And I will for albums.

I agree with you in terms of consistency but it does also depend greatly on what the "true" picture really is. The ICC believe the compressed to be the official charts. There have always been eligabiiity rules and singles were removed from 30-50 in the 1970's for various reasons including falling sales. So what is right? Hit music I like but they do have issues in that hey only started later in 1994. It's a quandary but one I don't have to solve for a few months.

I think to complete the relevant data takes a long time. Particularly when you get into multiple versions of records and different B sides across release. Music Week listed all the catalogue numbers so I canaways look those up but again that's time consuming. Any given week can have 20 new entries in the Top 75 when you get to the 90's so assuming an average of 20 tracks a week for ten years that's 10,000 to find. If we say one minute per entry that's 177 hours work and believe me it is not one minute per entry.... of course from digital onwards it gets easier as hardly anything is released physically so no B side. And from 2001/2002 Charts Plus has listed most of the writers and new entries meaning that it is relatively easy grab that info as I have all those.

I do intend to finish this though. After all I have the data so why not use it for something?

by

» 18-04-17, 19:55

A little bit of information for all: I've sent an email to a contact at Music Week asking them to check if they still hold the elusive ChartsPlus publications from May 1991 to at least mid September 1992 (when Hit Music launched). The then publisher of Music Week also published both ChartsPlus and Hit Music as well as a number of other music industry newsletters. I've received a reply back that they are going to check their archives but sadly my source thinks that when UBM sold Music Week to Intent Media a few years back and the magazine decamped from Ludgate House to its (now former) office in Islington that all the old ChartsPlus newsletters might have been binned! However they are going to check and if they do find them in their archives they are going to see if it is possible / feasible to copy the various issues of the newsletter and send them to me. That would mean we would then have the full top 200 Singles for the period May 1991 to at least September 1992. I'm waiting for the definitive reply so watch this space...

by

» 20-04-17, 13:52

Originally Posted by kingofskiffle

The plan is

Singles
1950's official charts (available now)
1960's official charts (scheduelled for May this year). Includes breakers
1970's official charts (August or September)
1980's official charts (Christmas)
1990's official charts (2018. I need to decide how to list the 1990's singles and whether to include the Top 200 or not)
2000's official charts (2019)
2010's official charts (January 2020)

Albums
1956-1969 (or possibly 1979) (scheduelled for September). Requires significant checking as almost all the titles in the database are wrong in some way and will list album tracks. That data I have to gather. Will include breakers but I need to type these up.
1970-1979 (about three months after the first book)
1980-1989 including compilation chats Top 50 not issued anywhere.
1990-1999 (again I need to decide how large I go and may include compilation charts Top 100 from 1994.)
2000-2009
2010-2019
That last is easy.... if a Top 100. Less so if a Top 200.

Side Books
Record Mirror - 1955-1962 (available now)
Disc - 1958-1967 (coming soon including full charts and albums and breakers
Comparison - Disc, NME, Melody Maker and Record Retailer from 1952-1969. Singles only and includes all charts side by side.

A few follow-up questions if I may:

--you show breakers included in your 1960s official singles chart book, but not in your 1970s book. Will the 1970s breakers be included as well?

--is your 1956-69 albums book only including the official album charts?

--if so, I’d like to suggest a comparison book of ALL the major album charts, RM, MM, RR, NME, and Disc, 1956-69. Either all charts every week, or one listing of albums with chart positions in 5 columns. Plus breakers.

--or, perhaps list the album charts in their separate singles books, like what you’re doing for your Disc book, all Disc singles and album charts in 1 book. One way or another, I’d like to get all 5 album charts 1956-69 in your books.

--for your comparison singles book, is this all separate charts side by side, or one listing of all singles with all chart positions in columns?

--also for your comparison book, you didn’t mention Record Mirror or BBC, will you be including them as well?

--also, the 3 minor charts are not mentioned, though you mentioned one of them before, are you leaving them out? They’re not a high priority with me, just thought I’d ask…

by

» 20-04-17, 14:40

Thanks again Lonnie for answering my earlier questions as best you can. I fully-appreciate you have some further ruminations to work through and that you have several months in the schedule to do it. Whatever you determine as being the best or most workable way forward is ultimately fine with me. Regardless of our personal wishlists there will always need to be compromises even if it is just those inherent in the limited data and charts we have access to. The fact you're prepared to put this work in at all is good enough and I'll happily buy up the results however they're presented.

Which reminds me, I really do need to purchase a copy of what you've done to date........

Oh and also thanks to Robbie for making these important enquiries with MW. Even if the answer is negative as we now suspect, at least we'll know what's held and what isn't.

by

» 20-04-17, 15:37

--you show breakers included in your 1960s official singles chart book, but not in your 1970s book. Will the 1970s breakers be included as well?

--is your 1956-69 albums book only including the official album charts?

--if so, I’d like to suggest a comparison book of ALL the major album charts, RM, MM, RR, NME, and Disc, 1956-69. Either all charts every week, or one listing of albums with chart positions in 5 columns. Plus breakers.

--or, perhaps list the album charts in their separate singles books, like what you’re doing for your Disc book, all Disc singles and album charts in 1 book. One way or another, I’d like to get all 5 album charts 1956-69 in your books.

--for your comparison singles book, is this all separate charts side by side, or one listing of all singles with all chart positions in columns?

--also for your comparison book, you didn’t mention Record Mirror or BBC, will you be including them as well?

--also, the 3 minor charts are not mentioned, though you mentioned one of them before, are you leaving them out? They’re not a high priority with me, just thought I’d ask…

Cheers!

I will include breakers in the 1970's book.
The first albums book will be official only
A comparison book is in the works scheduelled for late this year/ early next year - singles first then albums.
I have failed to mention what charts go in the comparison book for a reason - I haven't decide which ones yet. Likely to be NME, record retailer, record Mirror, disc and melody maker. Maybe others. Not sure. Depends on what I can find to add.

by

» 20-04-17, 15:40

Originally Posted by Gambo

Thanks again Lonnie for answering my earlier questions as best you can. I fully-appreciate you have some further ruminations to work through and that you have several months in the schedule to do it. Whatever you determine as being the best or most workable way forward is ultimately fine with me. Regardless of our personal wishlists there will always need to be compromises even if it is just those inherent in the limited data and charts we have access to. The fact you're prepared to put this work in at all is good enough and I'll happily buy up the results however they're presented.

Which reminds me, I really do need to purchase a copy of what you've done to date........

Oh and also thanks to Robbie for making these important enquiries with MW. Even if the answer is negative as we now suspect, at least we'll know what's held and what isn't.

Thanks. I will do something good but it depends what I can access. If somebody discovers for example a magazine called Zlop that had charts I'll do a book on those if I can get them all

I'm also considering some form of billboard book as some examples of the Joel Whitburn books could be a tiny bit better in some ways for me personally. But we shall see! I don't want to issue more than one new book a month to avoid over taxing people's wallets!

I will do a comparison book as I have said but I need to decide how best to do it and how to do it justice. I have some ideas. But for. Ow official first.

by

» 21-04-17, 10:41

Originally Posted by Gambo

Thanks again Lonnie for answering my earlier questions as best you can. I fully-appreciate you have some further ruminations to work through and that you have several months in the schedule to do it. Whatever you determine as being the best or most workable way forward is ultimately fine with me. Regardless of our personal wishlists there will always need to be compromises even if it is just those inherent in the limited data and charts we have access to. The fact you're prepared to put this work in at all is good enough and I'll happily buy up the results however they're presented.

Which reminds me, I really do need to purchase a copy of what you've done to date........

Oh and also thanks to Robbie for making these important enquiries with MW. Even if the answer is negative as we now suspect, at least we'll know what's held and what isn't.

Bad news on that front I'm afraid. I've been informed that when Music Week left UBM and Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road in Southwark they left behind all copies of their various newsletters, including ChartsPlus. My source thinks they may still be there as there's an extensive archive of all publications but he doesn't know where they may all be! And worse - Ludgate House is apparently in the process of being demolished so goodness knows where the copies of ChartsPlus could be!

by

» 21-04-17, 10:45

Originally Posted by Robbie

Originally Posted by Gambo

Thanks again Lonnie for answering my earlier questions as best you can. I fully-appreciate you have some further ruminations to work through and that you have several months in the schedule to do it. Whatever you determine as being the best or most workable way forward is ultimately fine with me. Regardless of our personal wishlists there will always need to be compromises even if it is just those inherent in the limited data and charts we have access to. The fact you're prepared to put this work in at all is good enough and I'll happily buy up the results however they're presented.

Which reminds me, I really do need to purchase a copy of what you've done to date........

Oh and also thanks to Robbie for making these important enquiries with MW. Even if the answer is negative as we now suspect, at least we'll know what's held and what isn't.

Bad news on that front I'm afraid. I've been informed that when Music Week left UBM and Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road in Southwark they left behind all copies of their various newsletters, including ChartsPlus. My source thinks they may still be there as there's an extensive archive of all publications but he doesn't know where they may all be! And worse - Ludgate House is apparently in the process of being demolished so goodness where the copies of ChartsPlus could be!

Those elusive copies of ChartsPlus are becoming even more elusive!

Apparently it's becoming a tower block.... Shame we don't know - they could have sold them to us!

by

» 21-04-17, 10:54

Originally Posted by kingofskiffle

Originally Posted by Robbie

Originally Posted by Gambo

Thanks again Lonnie for answering my earlier questions as best you can. I fully-appreciate you have some further ruminations to work through and that you have several months in the schedule to do it. Whatever you determine as being the best or most workable way forward is ultimately fine with me. Regardless of our personal wishlists there will always need to be compromises even if it is just those inherent in the limited data and charts we have access to. The fact you're prepared to put this work in at all is good enough and I'll happily buy up the results however they're presented.

Which reminds me, I really do need to purchase a copy of what you've done to date........

Oh and also thanks to Robbie for making these important enquiries with MW. Even if the answer is negative as we now suspect, at least we'll know what's held and what isn't.

Bad news on that front I'm afraid. I've been informed that when Music Week left UBM and Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road in Southwark they left behind all copies of their various newsletters, including ChartsPlus. My source thinks they may still be there as there's an extensive archive of all publications but he doesn't know where they may all be! And worse - Ludgate House is apparently in the process of being demolished so goodness where the copies of ChartsPlus could be!

Those elusive copies of ChartsPlus are becoming even more elusive!

Apparently it's becoming a tower block.... Shame we don't know - they could have sold them to us!

What we need is to gain access to the BPI.

And sadly the BPI won't allow access to the public any more... why can't the OCC just pop along the corridor to get the chart reports from April 1991 to September 1992 then they could fill in the missing gaps for the missing numbers 76 to 100 for that period...

by

» 21-04-17, 10:57

Originally Posted by Robbie

And sadly the BPI won't allow access to the public any more... why can't the OCC just pop along the corridor to get the chart reports from April 1991 to September 1992 then they could fill in the missing gaps for the missing numbers 76 to 100 for that period...

So who would they give access to? Wonder if we offered to pay them to post the files to us?

by

» 24-04-17, 12:09

Originally Posted by MyFriendJack

Given how many websites have been forced to close down by the OCC, is there any danger that they will object to "their" data being published in this way?

I have not used their data. I am using data from the originally published magazines. (as evidenced by the fact that mistake for missing data on their website are corrected by my books) And if they do, I will point to the numerous other publications on iBooks and amazon (of inferior quality I might add) that exist with no take down note. So I feel safe.

by

» 27-04-17, 19:43

Originally Posted by me

What I suggest is the page number and also the "coming later", not only "coming soon" for next books.

I can't add a page count just yet as I'm not entirely sure how many it will be. I am tempted to present the Bubbling Under / Breakers charts as complete charts and if I do that adds considerably to the page count.

I'll add a coming later possibly - I don;t want to overwhelm people with the amount of books.

by

» 27-04-17, 19:48

Originally Posted by huhu78

Great Work!

One thing I would like to read is the total number of weeks in the charts in case of re-entries. I don't like to sum it up by myself

Thanks. I know what you mean and for albums in particular it's a tricky one. None of the more recent chart books split out the RE, but the older ones used to. I think it's useful as it shows when tracks renter after years, particularly with the download era allowing old hits to come back. Albums have always had RE combined, except once, and for my album book I am planning to show all RE, as nobody else has done this (except in one book, long out of print for one decade only). It is something to consider though!

by

» 28-04-17, 16:20

I am inclined to agree that a total week figure is useful, but if for any reason that isn't workable, it's far more important that the individual re-entries policy be maintained, as although it can be a fiddle to tally-up all the weeks oneself, better that than just having the total only and no indication of when those weeks actually were beyond the initial entry week. To follow this approach with albums in particular is no mean feat and will extend the works considerably, but it would be a next-to-unique resource once completed. It'll become more challenging in the latter stages - 2010s too if the Top 100 is adhered-to, as owing to trickle-selling on download and the long tapering tail of streaming popularity, numerous tracks now yo-yo up and down the chart, including above and below that threshold, so the no of re-entries to the top ton will be manifold in some cases. But if you adopt the 200, that would be less of an issue.

I bought the introductory 1950s volume and it is superb. There's nothing substantive I'd change really if it were me compiling this. I have a few minor comments, but they're nothing to get in a twist about in the scheme of this whole project - 1) I'm vaguely missing the nationality/nationalities of the acts listed as per the chart tomes of old; 2) it'd be useful for consistency's sake if the Saturday ending the week in which the chart was published be used rather than the elected magazine issue date (we know the first NME chart was based on sales reported from stores Monday 3rd - Saturday 8th November 1952 which gives a 'chart use' week-ending date of Saturday 15th November rather than Friday 14th); 3) as we customarily recognise the 'use' rather 'survey' week for the UK charts, in order for the full decade to be properly-covered, shouldn't we consider the final full survey week of that period to be included as part of that, even if the use week-ending date is into the next decade (e.g. the final survey week of the 1950s if we take that to be 1950 to '59 was Monday 21st to Saturday 26th December 1959, which resulted in the chart used week-ending Saturday 2nd January 1960 - or Friday 1st if one sticks to the NME issue date - so to my mind that chart should be part of the 1950s not '60s era - sorry this is really geeky stuff and too late anyway as you've settled on the use W/E date as the means of determining which decade a chart falls into, but still something worth considering if only to see if other geeky people agree ).

Otherwise, bloody marvellous and roll-on the end of the decade (which I am taking as December 2020!) as by then we'll have complete KOS collections of unique chart reference books.